Why Can’t You Use the Bible to Prove the Bible?

I would have thought that this would be obvious, but apparently it’s anything but.
So why shouldn’t you use the Bible to prove the Bible? The most obvious answer is Because if you find yourself trying to prove the Bible you are obviously talking to someone who does not accept the Bible as true. Why would some one who does not accept the Bible as true accept evidence from the Bible to prove anything? Let alone the Bible itself. If I said Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man is true and you said “I don’t believe it is,” would you accept “Of course it is! Look at this quote here [points to quote in The Rights of Man]. It proves The Rights of Man is true,” would that be enough to convince you that The Rights of Man is true? If not, then you cannot use a text that you believe is convincing when the person you are conversing with does not think it is convincing. It won’t work. At least not until you have verified its accuracy.
The second reason why you can’t use the Bible to verify the Bible is less obvious, but is far more important if your goal is to prove the Bible. As a historian, I often find myself with a single text at the center of my research. That text usually discusses an event that I want to make some historic claim about. For example, say I want to prove that Karl Marx believed that institutionalized (organized) religion doesn’t belong in government. If it was a letter that Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels that convinced me of that fact, then I would put that letter at the center of my research. Likewise, if it is the Bible that has convinced you of the truth of an event, you can put it at the center of your research. There is nothing wrong with that. However, putting a document at the center of your research does not mean using it as your only research. To go back to my Karl Marx research, I have a single document to begin with. However, that document doesn’t actually prove that Karl Marx believed that institutionalized religion does not belong in government. So I now need to prove my hypothesis with other documents. A great place to start is other work written by Karl Marx. The Capital and The Communist Manifesto may provide me with more evidence, as will other letters written by Marx. The more Marx says about institutionalized religion not belonging in government, the more likely my hypothesis is to be true. But I can’t just rely on what Marx has to say either. After all, I might be misinterpreting what he has to say. Or I may be ignoring other claims where he has said that religion should be in government. Such things are easy to miss if you are only using one type of source. So what else should I look at? Well, I should be looking at what other people had to say about Marx’s work. Did the people who knew him say that he believed institutionalized religion belonged outside of religion? Or did they say the opposite? What about other historians? What do they have to say about Marx’s view on religion in politics? Do they generally agree or disagree with me? The more evidence that I can collect in my favour, and the more flaws I can reveal in the arguments that disagree with my hypothesis, the stronger my argument is.
So why shouldn’t you use the Bible to prove the Bible? Because then you will have a very weak argument. So how do you create a strong argument? First, take the event that the Bible has convinced you of. Put the passage that convinced you at the center of your research. Singe you can’t really find other writing by the same author to corroborate that they believed what they said, you’ll have to find another, similar method of corroboration. So look for other passages in the Bible that corroborate that event. You still have a weak argument, but no it’s a bit stronger. Then you need to find others to corroborate further. Lets say you want to prove that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for a census. Did the government who ordered the census write about it? Were there any records from the census that you could use to prove it happened? How about other travelers? Did any of them write about having to go anywhere for the same census? Did anybody from any of the neighbouring kingdoms write anything about the census? Either positive or negative? Did anybody write about Mary and Joseph specifically? For example, the wise men? Or a fellow traveler staying at the inn? Or the census takers? Anything like that would significantly strengthen your argument. But it’s still not as strong as it can be. What do other modern writers have to say about Mary and Joseph traveling for the census? Do you have a lot of support that your argument is correct? Can you verify that their arguments are a good support for your own (are they also strong arguments? Are they well researched? Have they been debunked?)? What about the people who disagree with you? Can you show why they’re wrong? If you can do all of that, then you have a strong argument.
So, to recap, don’t use the Bible to prove the Bible because the person you are trying to convince won’t be convinced, and you will have a weak argument. Use sources outside of the Bible to prove the Bible because you will convince more people and your argument will be stronger. And, as you can see, yes, this is also why you should never use any text to try to prove said text.

146 responses to “Why Can’t You Use the Bible to Prove the Bible?”

– Where did our Bible come from? How good are the texts?
– Why do we believe its origin is supernatural?
– How do we know that it really is the Word of God?
– How accurate are our translations?
– Which version is the best?

Chuck Missler reviews the origin of both the Old and New Testaments in light of recent discoveries and controversies.

So ‘m listening to part 2. And one you have have something begin before time. You need time to have something before or after… Also these guys have a very clear biased, and don’t actually look at that the body of work done scholars. I highly suspect this guys don’tunderstand what an ad hoc argument is and fail to take into account the logical consequence of there there “arguments” effects the rest.

LOL then the prophesies, lets talk about prophesies. Oh wait not lets talk about descriptions in the bible, and talk about the bible talking about prophesies. We will give passages but we won’t actually say how they philosophized the future (and some of them talk about stuff that happens long before those books of the bible where even written. These guys are funny. Wow this was written in first person singular like it was really him hanging from the cross. Good job you’ve recognized the use of literary technique! Oh wait, that’s it? Well that isn’t a proof of a prophesy.

Lol these guys are jokers.

There personalities of the writers show up in the writing! Yes they do, and when there has been forgeries, and the bible is littered with them those, multiple authors come through too, often their word choices and sentence structure is markedly different.

Leave this stuff to the historians boys, you don’t know what your doing. Now I’m the biologist here not the historical, and not the biblical historian. That’s said if they knew what they where talking about they wouldn’t be so excited to share. The Bible isn’t such a great proof god or Christianity, and is certainly not good proof of the authority of it’s own teachings.Why am I comfortable saying this because I have read work compiling the body of conclusions by biblical historians, and known historians christian (well he was now he’s kind of spiritual) and not who have looked at the same work I have and much more and recognized the bible has deep internal flaws, and lack supporting external evidence. Though there is lots of evidence where the Israelite, and then the Christians after them go their theological ideas from.

Alright he is a Physicist. Problem one he hasn’t define God. One can not prove something with out a clear well laid out definition. With out those clear definitions you can keep moving about the goal posts when your don’t like the answers you get.

“Talk to the hard line athiests and they’ll say indeed it looks like science has indeed discovered god.” Whaaaaaaaa? Lol Um no that really not true I would have heard about it by now.

If this guy is a Physicist he should know that his diagram doesn’t show how the universe was created but how it was formed. We don’t let know what happened until a fraction of a moment after the big bang.

1:40. Okay I see he confusing beginning with creation. We know time and space had a beginning. We again don;t know what happened before the big bag, but that’s even a misnomer. Because at the beginning of the universe time began along with space. So before the universe began. There was no places and there where no whens. Before the universe doesn’t make sense because time didn’t exist.

We know that the universe as we know it started some finite amount of time ago (13.7 billion years). We don’t know it was created. we only know it started, how or how is still unknown.

We don’t know if the bible got it right yet, sure it say the universe had a beginning, but alone does not prove it’s right. Aristotle almost guessed evolution, and a whole host of other things. That does mean he didn’t get basically everything wrong anyway (like he’s interesting, but his ideas have all proved lacking)

At 3:33 he get something wrong. The universe didn’t start because of Quantum fluctuations, or at least we don’t know. What we do know is that the universe when it was very very tiny experienced quantum fluctuation. These behaved randomly creating clump of energy which as inflation continued its unstoppable pace and the universe no longer experienced these fluctuations of the cosmic scale (It was only in the sate for the barest moments). Those fluctuations resulting in the shape of the super clusters which make up the observable universe.

I’m begining to think this man has no knowledge of the science in this particular field in physics (he may have seen nukes go off but that also means he probably doesn’t know a whole lot about quantum physics, and has no barring on if he know his astrophysics. I’m seriously wondering if he’s basing his ideas off this diagram and hasn’t been consulting the experts.

This is an important lesson, just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they know everything about science. I happen to know a lot about the current hypothesis and knowledge surrounding the formation of the universe because I find it fascinating, but physics in general? Hell no, I’m a biologist. I only have so much time to learn and most physics is just not my thing.

Lol “that’s the definition of the biblical god.” Cute but no. It’s really not, it’s part of it, but all of that does not necessitates the biblical god. There are still many explanations which fit. He has failed to prove the biblical god, and honestly he doesn’t seem to understand what he’s talking about.

Like from my understanding physical laws as we know them requires spacetime, and would have likely started with the universe. I could be wrong about that.

What I know I’m not wrong about is this guy is being outright dishonest or at least he claiming knowledge he can’t possibly have by accident. We know know what existed with any certainty about what could happen in the “nothing” that existed before. We know time and space started with the universe because that is basically what makes up the universe.

He sneakily admits at the end (5:08) that he hasn’t in fact proven god. Following that while it isn’t clear it seems by his subtle remarks that he thinks Life proves god (the fact we are sitting here). Now that is my field of expertise! You want to argue life needs god? Well hate to tell you, but no. There lacks any indication that’s the case. If your talking about abiogenesis, or evolution. Both have no need for a god to give acceptable explinations for the hows. Also before you say anything (if you where going to that is) about how they don’t explain hoe the universe began. Then ya your right. Abiogenesis is the explanations (We know know definitively how life began yet, but we do have some very good ideas which a good deal of supporting evidence). And evolution is the explanation for how life changes over time, and ho the biodiversity first arose.

But sorry Brad, your friend there actually admitted science hasn’t proven god at the end of the video. That title was click bait and neither the title nor Gerald Schroeder where honest about that claim.

Your post assumes that the Bible was intended as a historical document whose point and veracity can be cross-referenced and tested by present-day scholarly and scientific methods.

That, I would suggest, is a fundamentally faulty and anachronistic view of the Bible.

The Bible was written in a pre-scientific era, before all of our present-day scientific, textual, and archaeological approaches and tools were developed. Today, we’re trained to think scientifically, and to judge the truth or falsity of a particular statement, document, or theory based on an intellectual and material inquiry into its claims using scientific methods.

None of those approaches and tools existed during the eras in which the Bible was written (or if they did, it was only in embryonic form), nor did people think in those terms. People did not think scientifically; they thought mythically.

The whole idea that the Bible was written with the intent to convey historical and scientific information is an anachronism. It’s projecting present-day modes of thought back into an era before those modes of thought had been developed.

The original writers of the Bible weren’t much concerned with what we today would call the scientific and historical accuracy of what they wrote. They were interested, rather, in inculcating life lessons intended to elevate the moral character of society, and induce individuals to cease from evil and destructive practices and instead learn and choose to live in moral and ethical ways characterized by a concern for their fellow human beings.

All of this was done within the context of a general concern with the relationship between God and humanity–God being the source of the laws of morality that humans were meant to follow for their own temporal and/or eternal well-being.

As interesting as historical and scientific studies into the stories and events of the Bible may be, they largely miss the point of what the original authors intended to accomplish through these texts.

And yes, this does mean that much of what Christian fundamentalists write and believe about the Bible is fundamentally flawed. Christian fundamentalism is itself a recent (less than 200 year old) reaction to the development of scientific and rational thinking. So fundamentalist views of the literal truth, inerrancy, and historical accuracy of the Bible are just as misguided and anachronistic as are atheist attacks upon the Bible based on its general lack of scientific and historical accuracy and verifiability.

They’re really two sides of the same erroneous coin.

The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a textbook of history and science. It is a book intended to move people to leave behind evil and destructive motives, beliefs, and actions and adopt good and constructive motives, beliefs, and actions instead.

Of course, we could debate how effective it is at accomplishing that goal. But at least that debate would make some sense given the nature and origins of the Bible.

People who take the Bible to be a metaphor or assume that it is not completely factually true generally don’t try to prove that the Bible is true, so taking that view into consideration hen writing this post wouldn’t have done me any good. It’s the people who say that the Bible is the literal word of God and that it is a historical text that is scientifically accurate who try and prove the Bible’s accuracy using the Bible.

Yes, I understand. But I still think the entire debate completely misses the point. It’s like debating the paragraph structure of a poem. Poems don’t have paragraphs. They have lines and stanzas. Or it’s like debating whether the moon is made of green cheese or red cheese. Umm… the moon isn’t made of cheese at all. Why even engage in the debate?

Fact is, fundamentalists are going to believe what they’re going to believe regardless of science and reason. I don’t see debating them about the “truth” of the Bible as a fruitful use of time.

Well the fact is Fundamentalist disproportionately write legislature. To ignore them is to allow them to write more of their beliefs into laws unopposed, unwittingly we let fundamentals drive us toward theocracy the follows there beliefs. Now I don’t suspect they will ultimately succeed, but I wish to see them to a little damage to law and education along the way, and how so many fundamentalist wish to distort law and rend our children’s education to shreds. That and the damage already done is considerable. Look at many of the text books coming out of Texas.

More, to say that to debate is pointless is to imply that ideas are not important, as though they can’t enact change. Clearly they can and do, and still more fundamentalist are still people minds can change. One only needs to find a crack and plant a seed, and there is no shortage of ex-fundamentalists who can attest to this should you look. Like the ex-clergy project for example. Ideas matter, and fundamentalism of basically any variety is dangerous to ignore it is to be a bystandard.

People need to understand what fundamentalists believe so that they might think twice before they throw their vote at them. Do they really promote what I want to see?

Now if the Bible is all just allegory and metaphor then why would god be any different. Why is Yahweh not just the representation of early Israelites. A creature born of that peoples culture and influences. But no, I don’t agree to such a watered down bible because that’s not how many, most, Christians think of their holy book. Besides the bible is full of clear unambiguous laws and rules. Many of which relate to despicable like slavery, how women are property and less than men. How doubt, and reason are bad and the work of evil, and faith, which often amount to little more than the suspension of your thinking faculties, is somehow a good thing. If it’s in there I say it’s fair game. If you want to look at from a historical point a view excellent, but that’s not the only way people look at it.

Again if you want to argue from the historical cultural standpoint cool do that. Hessian can do that too and I’m sure she would like too, but don’t tell us that anything else is of no value or otherwise useless.

I’m not sure that I accept the claim that “Fundamentalist disproportionately write legislature”. But let us make that assumption. The claim seems to be that this is “bad” for a majority of the population covered by the laws. And if “morality” or more specifically, God’s morality, was all that laws were written about, there would be a good chance that a case could be made for that viewpoint. The problem is, that many other things besides “morality” are legislated. And the “non-fundamentalists” have some pretty wacky ideas as well, some of which are arguably more damaging than the fundamentalists ideas.

Some people are wedded to one side or the other, and they don’t think about what their side proposes. For everyone else, it would be wise to look at a candidate’s complete picture, to decide which choice is less of a danger. Because let’s face it, no effective politician truly represents the majority of the people they are supposed to represent. Some deliberately and the rest because it is impractical if not impossible.

However, I doubt that debating the scientific merits of the Bible as if that’s a potentially valid way of reading the Bible will be effective in combating fundamentalism.

Yes, many fundamentalists do become atheists. But many of them remain Christians. I believe it would be more effective to press forward a more thoughtful Christian view of the Bible, which doesn’t require Christians to reject faith altogether in order to leave behind fundamentalist beliefs.

As far as the character of the Bible, once again, it has to be read within the context of its times. As with most literature, some things in it are time- and culture-bound, and some things are universal and timeless. A thoughtful reading of the Bible requires engaging the thinking mind in order to make those distinctions, and sort out the culturally-derived packaging from the divine (as I see it) message contained within the package.

Further, many so-called Christian beliefs simply aren’t taught in the Bible, and can be combated by appeal to the Bible itself. If you don’t mind my posting a link, here’s a brief article I wrote pointing out some “Christian Beliefs” that the Bible Doesn’t Teach.

About slavery in the Bible, that’s an example of something that has to be read within the cultural and historical context. In Bible times slavery was nearly universal in the world. In fact, it’s only in recent centuries that nations started passing laws against it.

Now, if God came along and said to pretty much any culture 2,000 years ago that they may not practice slavery, would they stop practicing slavery? No. They’d say, “That’s ridiculous. You’re a stupid God. I don’t believe in you, and I’m not going to listen to you.”

In other words, God had to pick the battles to fight in dealing with a human race that was at a very low ebb spiritually, morally, and ethically. In the context of those times, about the best God could hope for was to get people to treat their slaves more humanely than they otherwise would.

In recent centuries, when the movement began to end state-sanctioned slavery around the world, many of those who fought the battle against legal slavery were themselves ardent Christians who read the teachings in the Bible–especially in the New Testament–about freedom and the worth of human beings, and came to the conclusion that slavery was incompatible with the will of God and with genuine religion. Unfortunately, it took thousands of years of human spiritual and social progress before we were ready to hear and act upon that message.

God can’t reform humanity all at once. Attempting to do so would cause our destruction as human beings. Instead, God works on us little by little, making progress where progress can be made, and not attempting to change things about us that we aren’t ready and therefore aren’t able to change at that time.

The Bible is claimed by some people to be the actual Word of God, and as such, is completely “True”. Thus, if one does not believe that claim, it is reasonable and even prudent to subject the book to standard practices to verify or disprove that claim. Due to the age of the document and some of the fantastic claims it makes, these verification methodologies are rather more difficult/less reliable than for more modern and more scientifically oriented documents.

It is also possible that the Bible was written by men without inspiration by God, but in that case, its usefulness for any purpose is questionable. Because in today’s environment, it seems to be only of use to some of those who believe in it, and misused by many people.

Do you personally think it is important to assess the Bible as to its scientific and historical accuracy? It seems to me that much of that work has already been done. And the conclusion as I see it is that the Bible was not written according to 20th and 21st century scientific standards. How could it be? It’s various books were composed 2,000 or more years ago.

It makes much more sense to evaluate it in the context of the culture and paradigm in which it was written. Only then can we arrive at any sound conclusions about what sort of book it is, and whether there is any credibility to the idea that it is the Word of God.

Of course, if you deny the existence of God, then that wouldn’t be a very fruitful line of inquiry for you anyway, would it?

Of course it was not written to any kind of 20th or 21st century standards. Or 19th or 18th or so on. I believe it was written to God’s standards, and I have not yet seen evidence unambiguous enough to remove that belief.

The theory is that God inspired the Bible to guide His people in the type of ways he prefers to live their lives. The guide seems to focus on what is best Him, and for us. The way it is written is rather confusing to those who do not have His guidance (and some people who think they do)

This may seem dismissive, but is a God that is conformable with Slavery, who’s book never truly condemns it but gives rules, some of which are pretty horrid in themselves, about how best to conduct slavery. Even orders the slavery of others. Is that a God ever worth worshiping?

Just trying to provide you with fair and balanced, since you asserted the impossible, (bible can’t be used to prove itself) I was asserting the possible.

Balanced? That is hilarious.
Face it, Colostomy, you are fast becoming the Numero Uno Dickhead of the blog landscape. Almost on a par with Silence of Mind
Honestly, I am quite surprised your doctors actually allow you anywhere near a computer.
What a Silly Person you are.

I already cited Finklestein as a God hater with an obvious bias. His word is useless as to the scriptures.

RFLMAO.
Arse’ole comment of the month! Well done Colostorm.
Finkelstein is a scientist/archaeologist as are Herzog and former fundy William Devers and they have done more than enough to demonstrate how fallacious your piss-willy religion is.
You just can’t handle being bitch-slapped with science that’s all.
I am confident they would fall over themselves laughing at the mere thought they were ‘god-haters’. <em any god

Seriously, why would they show any emotion whatsoever toward something they didn’t believe in?
Just how insecure are you, Colostomy?

Hey, Colostomy, old buddy. I don’t ever recall seeing any god’s word. If you have seen such a thing , please, direct us to this panacea and maybe we can get together and have a prayer meet and regenerate a few missing limbs? How’s that, what say you?

I read the Bible through several times as a non-believer. I concluded that it was written by a ‘Very Smart Person’ who made the back agree with the front and He did it for MONEY! This led me deeper and deeper into spiritual death. Then through a series of miracles I became a believer. Now reading the Bible is as easy as reading a comic book, it all makes sense.
Sure the Bible proves itself. Those of you who say it doesn’t, haven’t the ability to read it spiritually. Every word in the O.T. Agrees with every thought in the N.T. Not only that, but nearly every prophecy in the Old Testament has come true. We are at the end of the prophecies. Time Is running out.
As for other ‘proofs’ ! They have found old papyrus that states that every Jew in the province and from other nations had to go to their birthplace to register for the military and to be taxed.
The great Jewish historian Josephus while serving the Romans wrote a history of the Jews and you will find that in it he wrote of Jesus.
How much truth do you need?
The truth of the situation is this: You refuse to believe the Bible because it will expose your sins. Don’t worry–You will stand before Jesus some day soon and you will bow before Him and admit your error. Then you will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity!
I would suggest that you change your ways before it’s too late! He loves you and does not want you to suffer for eternity. However his Law is just and faithfully carried out. To not believe is to burn forever and forever.

One question: why the fuck do you think I would bow down to someone who plans to torture me for eternity? Screw that. If you’re right, which I highly doubt you are, given your inability to notice the contradictions in the Bible even when you were an “atheist,” I won’t be bowing down to some asshole who plans to torture me regardless of how good of a person I have been simply because I didn’t worship them.
And don’t try to tell me I can’t be a good person because I’m an atheist. You look forward to a day when I am tortured for eternity. You get pleasure from that thought. You cannot be a good person while enjoying that idea. You have made it obvious that you are not a moral person.

I have often wondered if i wasn’t born a Christian would i have been willing to become one? Truth is, the Bible isn’t just another Book, it is the Book, its is Life, it is God’s very own Word. How do you explain how a baby is formed and stays in a woman’s stomach for a period of 9 months and even more? Even when science tries to form Test-tube babies they still get the Sperm and Egg from a male and female. The Koran speaks of Jesus Christ as a prophet and even talks of some of the plagues in Egypt. The Koran isn’t the Bible rather a Book for the Muslims. If they can recognise the God of the Bible even when they have a different belief it goes to show there is more to this God than mere research and deductions. I can’t prove the Bible neither can anyone rather we let the works of the Bible speak. Ever wondered why some theologians who have studied the Bible still doubt their faith? Simply because you can’t use human understanding to grasp spiritual things. God created us to make choices as well as reason too and you are doing just that. Its great to see you are interested in such a topic and i applaud you for that. I pray this search will take you deeper and just like Saul, he met Jesus and the one who was on his way to execute Christians became the one who was a strong advocator for Christianity. I pray you have your own personal encounter that is way beyond proof.

Can you prove that the Bible is the word of god? Because unless you can, telling me that it is is useless. Remember: if you are trying to say that the Bible is true to somebody who doesn’t believe it, you can’t expect the person to believe you because you don’t think it can’t not be true. You are trying to convince them, not yourself. You need to be able to offer evidence that they will accept.
Fetuses stay in the womb for 9 months because they need to to survive. Our bodies are built in such a way that it’s possible to do so. However, our bodies aren’t actually very good at keeping fetuses in the womb, at least not during the first trimester. If your god created us, and he’s so perfect, why do 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage? Most miscarriages are caused by chromosomal flaws in the fetus. Shouldn’t an all knowing, all powerful god be able to prevent those from happening?

There are so many questions that could come out from this comment and even the world as a whole. Maybe if you look for the book ‘I dare to call him father’ it may help you. All the best in your search for the truth.

hessianwithteeth is not ‘battling with some questions,’ but making a case that a text cannot alone sanction truth-claims concerning it, without additional research, criticism and empirical validation.

Your argument reduces to: “the Bible proves its self because we believers tell you it does.” I’m certainly not going to bow to your ‘authority’ in this matter. You have no credentials for it beyond your belief, and your belief is unconvincing.

A Christian is not born a Christian, by definition. A Christian “chooses” to be a Christian, which means they must be old enough to understand what they are saying. At which time they are considered to have been “born again”.

Actually, no. We had no religion at all growing up. As such, I was a non-theist. My experiences with church were they were money-grubbing, boring and seemed more interesting in espousing their own views than views it seemed a God would want given.. My experience with Christians were that they were annoying and ineffectual, with a flawed understanding of logic. I first heard the Gospel in my 30’s, did an engineering analysis of it, and decided it was the most inefficient system I’d ever heard of.

It took many more years to work out that 1) my opinion doesn’t matter to God, 2) not all Christians are obnoxious, 3) not all churches are only interested in my wallet, 4) some churches actually preach something which seems like God might want taught and 5) some churches don’t avoid humor or take themselves absolutely seriously.

My contention with what you have written is not that you are christian, I think you are not, but that you suggest Christians choose when they are old enough which isn’t the case. Were that the case, just maybe, I wouldn’t have been a christian to begin with.

Well I’ll just pop in here because I do find it ever so rude to question a persons identity with out giving good reasons as well. There is a time and a place for it, but I didn’t think it was necessary in this case.

Though that said I think your correct on your other point, people are born into religion most often, it’s rare where there is a real choice. It’s why you often see religions follow geographical borders. If people truly chose freely you’d expect to see a diversity everywhere.

I’m not a Christian? If so, that would be quite disturbing. I think I’m a Christian although perhaps not a “typical” Christian. Actually, more accurately, I think I have a relationship with God which is somewhat pleasing to Him but is far from perfect. Like everybody else, I cannot KNOW that I’m “right with God”, because in the end ONLY God knows for sure.

“Old enough” is not just age, it is knowledge, maturity and experience enough to make an informed decision. I agree that “children” are too easily swayed into accepting theory or belief or even fiction as fact (look how easily the Santa Claus concept is accepted). Some can re-evaluate later to ensure that the decision is right for them, and modify their belief system if appropriate. Others become mired in their early indoctrination and are unable to think of anything contradictory.

As mentioned, calendar age is not the most important factor. A person can be educated about religious concepts fairly early as long as it is not presented as “truth”. “Some people think that X” rather than “X is so”. When they get to evolution in school, it would be better (in my opinion) if it were presented as “the best guess science currently has” and mention the competing theory that “God created us or at least guided our evolution”. Frankly, there is no time when something which is not provable should be presented as a “fact”.

I’m not sure I understand what a typical Christian is 🙂

The base concept of a Christian seems to be a person who has a “correct” relationship with Jesus. The definition of correct is the problem. I would say that “typically”, a Christian would tend to have the following beliefs to some degree:

1) God exists
2) He sent part of Himself to live with Man as Man
3) That person was known as Jesus
4) Jesus lived a sinless life
5) Each of us has a part of their being which continues on after the body dies
6) The condition of that part of a person depends on ones behavior while the body was alive
7) No person, through their own actions, can ensure a good condition after the death of their body.
8) Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for every sin ever committed, currently being committed and to be committed, by every person that was, is and will be, and was resurrected after He died..
9) Sacrifice is the only way to pay the “fine” for sin, and only the sacrifice of Jesus is enough to pay all a person’s fines.
10) One avails oneself of this gift by accepting Jesus into their heart, regretting their past sins, and making serious effort not to commit future sins, realizing that they WILL fail, to some degree..
11) This implies having a relationship with Jesus; prayer on the part of the person and some form of communication back from Him.
12) The Bible was inspired by God and provides guidance on how God prefers they behave.

2 through 12 tend to be limited to Christians, and of course, there are many more beliefs which most Christians have a subset of.

Of course, far too many Christians (actually, people in general) don’t get the concept that a belief is not necessarily “truth”, and are convinced that it is “their job” to educate people who don’t share those beliefs to this “truth” so as to “save” them. Some even feel that it is “their job” to enforce “God’s rules” even on people who do not share their beliefs that the rules are valid or even that God exists (or cares).

There are many “flavors’ of Christianity and perhaps the concept of a “typical” Christian is counter productive.

Though that said I think your correct on your other point, people are born into religion most often, it’s rare where there is a real choice. It’s why you often see religions follow geographical borders. If people truly chose freely you’d expect to see a diversity everywhere.

Another possibility is that religions are adapted to the character of the particular populations in which they exist.

Consider the possibility that the particular form, beliefs, and practices of the various religions are non-arbitrary, but rather take that specific form because it is best suited to the character and culture of those who belong to it.

If that is the case, then the ability to randomly choose a religion other than the religion one was born into would not be particularly useful or helpful.

If I walk into a clothing store I could, of course, buy any size of shirt I wanted. But it would make the most sense to buy a shirt that fits me.

Similarly, if I’m born into a religion that fits the general character of the culture into which I was born, what would be the point of randomly choosing some other religion that is not so well adapted to me as a member of my particular culture?

The corollary is that those who step outside of their culture of origin conceptually and in their practices and lifestyles commonly do consider and even choose to switch religions or beliefs, or to move to a different form of their religion of origin, such as moving from being an evangelical Christian to being a liberal Christian.

the Muslim believes the Koran is the book, the Hindu believes the same about the Gita. Since some of the claims made by these books are in direct contradiction, what criteria do you use to chose which of the books to follow?

I think that depends. I was reading a Christian apologist defending the truth about Jesus’ resurrection and he pointed out how the first witnesses of the empty tomb were women. Back then, women were considered inferior to men and did not have legal right to serve as witness. If Jesus’ resurrection was just a legend, the author would have used men to find the empty tomb instead to make his story more believable.

And not all Christians interpret all of the Bible literally. Some passages are read metaphorically.

Just because it seems unlikely that something isn’t fabricated doesn’t mean that your argument becomes strong without outside sources. An unlikely story doesn’t become more likely by being made more unlikely.
If someone believes the Bible is a metaphor, then they obviously aren’t going to be trying to prove that it’s true. My post is only refer to cases where people are trying to prove that it’s true.

The same reason you can’t use science to prove atheism. Because at its heart science cannot disprove God. At its best it must admit it does not know more agnostic than atheist. Quantum physics reads more like theology than most theologies.

Well not really. First I’d argue that there are instances where academia can prove some religious claims are false. Though the main reason that you can’t disprove god with science is because the god in question isn’t testable. Science can only make claims on testable things.

I suggest you reread this post as it’s has far more to do with history than the sciences.

So atheism is testable? and on the history score archeology has found more Bible stories than other recorded histories dating back that far You don’t know science well, theoretical science such as quantum physics makes claim on things that are not measurable all the time!

Measurable is not synonymous with testable. Measurable is a specific type of testable. However, in quantum physics, if they cannot measure, they can test their theories in other ways. If they can’t test there ideas, they can’t say much about them. That’s why all they said about the Higgs Boson for the longest time was “we think it exists, given our data, but we don’t know for sure.”
Atheism isn’t science. It’s a belief claim. We can test certain claims about gods that exist. In fact, many claims about gods, including your God, have been debunked. The problem is, believers keep moving the goal posts. For example, did you know that before the invention of the telescope, people thought that God lived in the clouds? When it was shown that there was no God in the clouds, people decided that God lived beyond the clouds in space. But as telescopes became more powerful, it was discovered that God doesn’t appear in space either. At least, nowhere near earth. That was when people started to claim that God didn’t live in our universe. It’s hard to disprove something where the goal posts move so regularly. However, it also makes it impossible to prove to.
You tell a biologist that they don’t know science, while giving very bad history lessons to a historian. Not very smart. No, archeology has not found “more Bible stories than other recorded histories dating back that far.” That’s not even a sensible claim. First of all, finding Bible stories literally means finding writings of stories in the Bible. That doesn’t say anything more than how old the stories are and possibly that they are older than first thought. However, we have a lot of recorded history. And we have much older texts than those related to the Bible. The biblical texts (including the extrabiblical ones) are only a very small part of archeology/history. And “that far back” isn’t a useful time scale. Can you give me dates?

on a scale 4 to 6 thousand years, most battles described are well dug up some good re-dating on the exodus lines it up better as Pharaohs were notorious about erasing predecessors from documents and taking credit for their achievement several dynasties went missing No I don’t believe that is the age of the earth, and well know we are talking billions of years!

So true!!! At some point one has to have faith to believe in God but there is so much that validates the Bible that’s outside the bible (archaeology, history books: the people and places are in other books, science)

I love talking about what validates the Bible because a lot of people, believers and non-believers, think it’s ALL based on faith. This is not true! God created us to be inquisitive, to desire proof, to ask questions and He’s graciously given us some answers. He is also patient and loving as we question and doubt him. But again… with belief and disbelief… one ends up at a faith decision! And a faith is God does not mean one will cease to have doubt.

Ah.. well, science doesn’t work like this. ‘Proofs’ are largely reserved for the realm of maths, as you would know if you took a few moments to think. Or maybe you were simply being snide: a little clever-clogs, eh? Smile…
However, the overwhelming evidence has led archaeologists and other relevant scientists and scholars and intellectuals to conclude that the Pentateuch is fiction, especially such nonsense as the Egyptian Captivity, Exodus and Conquest of Canaan etc. and this has been known for ages.
Does that make toy feel better now?
However …. if you have any evidence to put forward that cast the slightest doubt on the findings of people like Finkelstein and Devers, by] all means feel free to do so. I for one am all ears.

No, trying to concentrate a global statement like “the pentatuch is fiction” down to something which might actually be something which could be evaluated. I had hoped for a bit more detail, but let me see what I can find out about “the Egyptian Captivity nonsense” as a starting place.

As an aside, you might find it more effective to be less abusive in your arguments. Some people engage because they like to, and after some number of insults to them and the subject of discussion, decide it is no longer enjoyable and quit. Unless, of course, that IS the way you “win” your arguments..

Ah, well, people like Colorstorm already has a bad Street Rep and he/she/it has a little history. He’s a cutie really. A dickhead too, of course.
I am truly surprised you are unaware that the Egyptian Captivity etc.
Research Herzog, Finkelstein and Devers.
I can give you a wonderful link to a friend/fellow blogger who has been communicating with scholars and relevant professionals in Israel ( universities etc) blogger

”Winning” is not the objective. That is just cheap oneupmanship. Establishing truth and trying to make sure religious diatribe gets as little leeway as possible.
People like Colorstorm should be discouraged from entering the gene pool – even in the shallow end otherwise he will likely soon be offering discounted rates to join the Ken Ham fan club.

I respectfully disagree… while not every single point can be proven. .. just like other history books we use. .. there is evidence of it validity. On the side of the atheist this proof would be written off and so the circle goes.

As I stated before… belief in God does mean doubt ceases to exist. .. but greater than the doubt I have at times is the joy… peace… and hope that comes from being loved by ones Creator.

If you truly had respect then you would do your homework and understand exactly why archaeologists such as Prof. Israel Finkelstein, and of more relevance to Christians, former fundy,and now atheist, archaeologist, William Devers realise through years and years of painstaking work in the field that the Pentateuch is largely, nothing more than fiction, especially the stories of Genesis, the Patriarchs and the Exodus etc.

If you have evidence to refute this please post it. I am sure we will all be most interested.

Let me look into those two gentlemen and I’ll get back with you. I have 3 little kids so it might take me a while 🙂

I do find something interesting about Atheist. Can I ask your motivation… drive… to disprove God or the bible?

Let’s say, hypothetical, that the first 5 books of the bible can not be backed by archaeology… do you then throw out the rest of the books in the bible? Others truths given within its text? Are you one that would say the entire bible is void of truth?

I have to be honest, I find it perplexing that a group of people who claim life has no meaning, definitely live as though their meaning in life is to rid the world of the idea of God (I personally believe God is real and not just an idea… if you have picked up on that 😉 )

People who claim where is not meaning in life are call Nihilists most of the time, any you can be religious and nihilistic.

As to motivation to disprove god and religious claims? Well that’s simple I don’t think they are true, but many religious people assert their religious belief as fact and some try to impose those beliefs on the general population. So I test my own belief by making sure that that ever they are saying is true or not, and most of the time religious people speaking in this manner are making baseless assertions they cloud never hope to defend with evidence or in a fair and reasonable debate.

Non-believers wouldn’t care nearly as much if religious believers wouldn’t shove things down our throats or make wild claims with out evidence as though they knew those claims where true. A major problem is many people just don’t know the difference between a justified belief in a knowledge claim and an unjustified belief in what what ever else.

There isn’t anything wrong with having unjustified beliefs. There is something wrong in thinking that just because you think something is true make it justified. Belief and anecdotal evidence alone is not enough to justify any claim.

Thank you for educating me in the area of terms! I’d never heard the term Nihilust. I was just going by the conversations I’ve had with the Atheists in my life. It seems we end up at the same place which is… “What’s the purpose of life” and they say “there is no purpose”. But just like in Christianity… we are all humans and can misrepresent a general belief and make mistakes. I know I do!!

Your post was interesting to me. I will admit 2 things… #1 I agree that Atheist aren’t bad people no more so than anyone else. #2 you are more educated than me in many ways which might mean we hit a wall sooner than later 😉

If you would indulge me a bit… I enjoy learning why people believe the way they do… you wrote that if one wants to disprove Atheism one must prove there is a God. So then do you believe if one wants to disprove Christianity one must prove there is no God? Are you confident that man has proven there is no God?

Also… what do you feel is being pushed down your throat?

Lastly, you stated that you have hope outside of belief… that those 2 things are not necessarily connected… what do you personally have hope in and what do you hope for? This struck me the most because I’ve never met an Atheist with hope.

Sure I can indulge you some. Sorry for taking so long, but I have time sensitive work to do, and only so much energy to put towards writing.

To understand why you have to prove a god (not your just your god but any god) to disprove atheism, but disproving theism or particular sets of theist traditions such as the many different forms of Christianity is not equivalent to disproving god. You need to understand that atheism is a simple belief claim, either that you think there is no god, or you think it is less likely to be a god or gods then it is to be those gods or god.

Theistic traditions on the other hand have a lot more going on and make many claims, but those particular claims are highly depended on the particular tradition. Christianity isn’t really a tradition in and of itself, but a label we apply to many similar faith traditions born from one of many offshoots of the earlier Christian sects.

Now why you can disprove some of these sects without disproving a god is simplify because they hold contradictory beliefs. Many religious traditions make core claims which contradict each other. Where there a contradiction there a problem and you know the one claim has to be wrong so that original claim of truth is blown out of the water, so clearly the whole thing can be correct, and if they claim inerrancy which some do then you know they are false.

That said, not all religious traditions can be debunked that way, so you cannot prove them wrong in a strict sense. You can show those traditions to be unlikely in many ways, but you cannot deduce if they are false you have to use inductive reasoning.

I just dropped a lot on you there, so if you’re having trouble understanding what the hell I’m going on about, look up definitions and reread, and if your still not getting it tell me which part don’t make sense. We are driving strait into many complex philosophical ideas here so there’s no shame in not knowing what I’m talking about.

“Also… what do you feel is being pushed down your throat?”
Read a few of ColorStorms comments on this post if you’re not sure ask that question again. But to be a bit more clear it mostly has to do people with making bald assertions and acting as though they are cold hard facts which can’t be disputed and failing to ever give any evidence (links, citations, sources of authority) to back it up. And then when we ask for evidence getting the same bald assertions throw back at us or being told something rude or insulting.

You’ve never met an athiest with hope? Well I suspect you haven’t met many athiest then, but I could be wrong. Many athiests don’t tend to talk in terms of hope. For me I see the world is complexity and our ability to come to understand it as so incredible and unlikely that alone can give me hope. What’s more is that even more all the bad the world is so much better and getting better all the time. Heck we in the first world are living better then kings did for most of history. Also medicine, not dying is great! More still the change of you or I being murder, even including number from all the wars of the last century is about 2%. for much of human history that number could be as high as 20-30%, and often didn’t get much lower than 10%. We are incredibly lucky to live at this time.

No apology needed… I am right there with you on the “I have more important things than typing” So I appreciate you taking the time out of your day.

The idea that you don’t have to disprove God to disprove Christianity is a understandable one. To be honest… I can understand an Agnostic more than an Atheist… but I believe in the supernatural which science can not prove so I’m assuming Atheist find it to be a bunch of bull. But I’ve seen it and those close to me, my brother-in-law, have seen it. The good and the bad… especially in the tribal areas of Africa. I also have friends who live in China who have seen things that are unexplainable… so I believe in the spiritual world which means I will always believe in a Creator.

I agree with you when you say “claim inerrancy which some do then you know they are false” There are some inerrancies… plus from a Christian standpoint other religions like LDS and Mormons have changed the bible… so I’m not under some falsehood that the bible can’t be tampered with. I would love it if God had struck down anyone who tampered with it but again… He does not seem to think the same way I do 😉

I am sorry that things have been pushed down your throat… I hate that feeling. Christians are called to love no matter what and if a person can’t love someone and treat them with respect just because they disagree, than that person is immature… and probably shouldn’t be getting into discussions… in my opinion.

Love this line you wrote… “For me I see the world is complexity and our ability to come to understand it as so incredible and unlikely that alone can give me hope.” I think the same but I think with a different hue… regardless, it is amazing that we have the ability to do what we do!

And lastly… I agree with your last line… we are incredibly lucky to love at this time… I am truly grateful!!

I hope you are having a nice evening and I look forward to reading more post… I might not comment anymore… I felt a bit attacked (almost threatened) but I’m planning on making one specific blogger my friend 😉 if he’ll let me!

Yes, and I’m sorry things get heated some times, and we can not always follow all the conversations, but there we some comments I did not appreciate and my have to do something about them if they continue, but currently I prefer to give more leeway then less it has led to some rewarding conversations.

Just found an interesting documentary, “Patterns of Evidence – Exodus”, which looked at the archaeological evidence found which could support the Biblical account. It was clear that no evidence of any of the Biblical events has been found from the Egyptian “New Kingdom” (which included the rule of Rameses II) despite extensive search. However, there has been significant evidence found which could support the Biblical story occuring during the Egyptian “Middle Kingdom” (estimated 2000-1400 BC). Furthermore, supporting evidence of the conquest of Caananite cities as described in the Bible was found in that earlier time frame as well.

Perhaps a fixation that the Bible story “happened” under Rameses has “hidden” the evidence which people have searched, for because that evidence was found to be from a “too early” time frame.

This is a piece of nonsense Christian propaganda and really not worth getting into too much discussion about.
The bloke who made this ”film” is not even an archaeologist so how would he be able to correctly interpret any information?
This ”wrong era” hypotheses has been bandied around for ages.
Kenyon already dated Jericho and Finkelstein has shown the merits of the Settlement Pattern.
There is no evidence whatsoever at Kadesh Barnia.
If you can explain this alone to the satisfaction of scientists I might be willing to consider other stuff.

Is there anything incorrect in it? Or is it just a different interpretation of what has been found?

Sure, there is a difference of opinion of when things happened, but it does appear there is definitive evidence of a population of people who could have been Israelites, who went through the described pattern of arrival, expansion, slavery and dispersal in Egypt. Maybe coincidence, maybe not, but to dismiss it as “nonsense” or “propaganda” would seem to be as self-serving as dismissing Finklestein’s theories as “nonsense” and “propaganda”, or anything else implying it had no validity.

As for Kenyon’s dating, there is claimed to be evidence that earlier Jericho had a significant wall which collapsed and then the city was set on fire. This lines up with the “earlier era”. If Kenyon was convinced of a particular time frame when Jericho “must” have been destroyed, and it actually happened centuries earlier, it would be easy to decide the destruction did not occur as the Bible claims.

The documentary is not necessarily invalid if the film maker who made the film is not an archaeologist; he certainly interviewed a number of them. Did he pick and choose those who agreed with his preconceived premise? It is possible, but these sources are not without some credibility.

There is also reference to a book, “Exodus – Myth or History?” by David Rohl. Maybe not an archaeologist, but certainly a known Egyptologist.

The filmmaker has received no backing for his theories from any recognised archaeologist as far as I am aware.

Kenyon’s dating: Check the number of carbon dating tests performed. None point to an earlier time as far as I have been able to ascertain.

There is no evidence of 2 million people leaving Egypt en masse at any time.

The country would have suffered economic collapse. Its population was only estimated at a total of around 4 million.

There is only evidence of the Hyskos.

The is no evidence of such a multitude settling there as per the bible at Kadesh Barnia and archaeologists dug there for nearly 70 years.

The mainstream scholarly and archaeological view across the board – including Jews and Christians – is that there is no factual evidentiary basis for the biblical tale.
Rohl. Well his revised chronology theory has no major takers and he is also a proponent in the Garden of Eden.
Need one say more, really?

Not to be flippant but this really is an exercise in credulity that ( in the main) fundamentalists lap up, grab their bibles and wave them vigorously in the air yelling ”See!”
f you truly wish to consider the biblical tale of Moses and the Exodus – and you would likely have to concede all the stuff that goes with this yarn – you might as well sign on for a monthly newsletter from Ken Ham.

You have to prove that that is true before you can use the Bible as the only self-proving book. Since that is impossible to prove, you can only use the Bible as you would any other book: as if it could be flawed and must be verified.

How is it “self-proving”? If self proving were possible, then how is it this is the only case?

Like any other book, you can see whether it contradicts itself, whether it is contradicted or supported by other documentation, whether it is supported by or contradicted by archaeology, whether any living witnesses are available (not in this case), and whether you have a valid “chain of evidence” from the original to the current.

As far as I know, the Bible has not been disproved, but that does not prove it. We can believe it is the inspired Word of God, but we have to realize that if we say “the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible”, we are opening ourselves to ridicule, and rightfully so.

I honestly don’t think there is a way to argue with a comment such as yours. Rather then interacting with our post you more a lest reject it all and assert yet again with out any evidence (not a single bit of your comment is evidence, it’s ass a series of baseless assertions) that your translated tome holds knowledge which it simplely does not. You assert that it’s true, but I doubt you taken more then a moment look at the many people, books, and organizations that would say otherwise. Even other Christians!

How can we even talk when your understanding doesn’t allow for even the possibility you could be wrong. How can we discuss with you when you reject all evidence, and maintain the assertions you hold to be true against all evidence?

Your concern is valid, but all your objections, and all others, have been met, and the bible has actually been tried to be dismissed for oh, how many thousands of years.

No other book on earth has been so challenged. IF it is God’s word, then doncha think it would be self proving as I suggested?

There is a built in confidence and layers upon layers of information that men could not know, for instance the modern technology with the 666, and how impossible that was to understand 2000 plus years ago, today it is common knowledge.

I personally will not argue for the bible, it does not need me. I cannot add to the truth of it. I cannot convince anybody of its contents.

I will say though,. that most who argue vehemently (not you it appears) against it, look for testimony against it, and unfairly do not search the scriptures with the same rigor.

And for what its worth, the nation of Israel is one of the greatest proofs that God’s word is true.

yes yes,yes,yes,and yes A nation in perpetual trouble,that’s the point. What other nation has risen from the ashes?. EVERYthing u mentioned has been written and foretold, The destruction of the temple was foretold by the Lord. Yes, another will be built.

I’m thinking u care a little; it took some time to put this post together’ I appreciate all the links-

The main one: Finklestein hates God, the word of God, and plies his craft to discredit the scriptures. He has zero credibility when it comes to the scriptures.

He sings an old song. If these are the ‘other’ sources needed to confirm scripture, its no wonder nothing is ever settled.

A good portion of the trouble that the Jews have experienced can be summed up as self-fulfilled prophesy. However, the prophesy in question is very vague. Unless it were to say “in 1945 the country of Israel will be given to the Jewish people” it is not obviously true. It’s like a horoscope or a fortune cookie. If I read “Someone will make you happy today” that doesn’t actually mean anything. Chances are, someone will make me happy every day. Reading a prophesy that says in some vague time for some vague reason some vague group will attack your nation means nothing either. A war-like people will piss people off and get attacked? Oh, really? How unexpected. Unless you have prophesies with specific dates, places, and groups, you have nothing, because you can fill in the blanks however you want.

Nobone this is convising to me, they all contain the text book problem of prophecy. They are vague. All you need to do is write “some day something will happen” and someone in a hundred years will think you where a prophet.

‘evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.’

This isn’t even true murder, violence, death. Have been going down for decades. Certainty in absolute terms they have stayed steady or gone up, but there are well over 20 times the number of people now as there where 2000 years ago. While the decline in violence has been recent it has been massive, and before that violence, murder and death didn’t really seem to rise much or change over all. But it’s hard to tell because the numbers get harder and harder to figure out as we go back in time.

What is true is people almost always think that the next generation is so much worse than there own. We have writing from the Egyptians saying as much.

“A quiet prophecy which had huge ramifications was the entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey. ”

Show me it happened, and no the bible alone does not count see if you can find a contemporary source from the time Jesus would have been alive and then we can talk.

“I do agree though that alot of IS problems are brought on by themselves; again a fulfillment of prophecy.”

Does this kind of prophecy really impress you? When i look at it what I end up seeing is a get out of argument free card becuase if something bad happens then “It’s because the Israelite’s/Jewish where not pious enough,” and if something good happens you can say “See God did it!”

There is nothing rigorous about it, all you have to do is switch out God with a jug a milk, and pretty soon you’d have people worshiping the milk jug who blesses you when you please it and ignores you when you don’t. It probably seem ridiculous when I put it that way, but I find the whole thing ridiculous because there are far better explanations!

Why should I take an unbiased look when you clearly haven’t? Jesus is using poetic language. It’s meaning is not clear. He could easily be saying “You know fighting is wrong, but you did it anyway. And now the enemy is marching here, and you may all die.” I don’t need any religious or spiritual beliefs to interpret that. You can tell me that I’m interpreting it wrong, but how do you know? How do you know the authors true intent when writing this?

Your reply here is the precise reason why you think the links you sent are good.

They MIS-interpret the text. The destruction of Jerusalem was a historical fact in 70 AD, that was the context, that was information that only God could know, and it is one more proof that the word of God is reliable.

But the first proof was ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth……………’

How do you know that this text was written prior to 70 CE and how do you know that it was specifically about the destruction of Jerusalem? Because, with only the bit you sent me, that could be about any battle. It’s not like they never happened.
Prove that your interpretation is more accurate than yours. Prove that this text says exactly what you say it says. Otherwise you’re just reaching.

Sorry, my lifetime was (probably) already more than half over when I accepted Jesus, and the Bible. Note that one of the reasons I did so was that the Bible appears not to have been disproved. But I am perfectly aware, and hopefully you can come to realize, that lack of disproof does not equal proof. Yes, many people who have tried to disprove the Bible have given up, some of them even converting. This also does not equal proof, although it is indicative.

When you say “no man could know’, you mean “at the time”, right? Otherwise the statement does not make sense. I think what you are referring to is fulfilled prophesy.

But let us say that you find 1000 things in the Bible you can absolutely prove, including some fulfilled prophesies (which are pretty convincing). Even though these things would then be “truth”, that does not extend proof to the entire Bible. Even 51% proven would not mean the whole thing could be considered to be proven.

We can accept the Bible is “truth” on faith. If we could prove it was all truth, we would not need faith, and anyone who did not accept it would be delusional. But we can’t prove it, and neither can anyone else. Any who claims they can prove it should expect to be required to so prove it. And fail..

Your concern is valid, but all your objections, and all others, have been met, and the bible has actually been tried to be dismissed for oh, how many thousands of years.

Well, no one else seems inclined to say it … You’re a damn imbecile.
Met my arse!
For a kick off, Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth prophecy is a complete crock and if you can come up with a peer reviewed, scientific acknowledgement, to disprove this I’ll nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

Oh, the biblical tale is complete tripe and if you know your OT, and the shenanigans of redaction and biblical compilation then you will know why and certainly don’t need me to explain.
If, however, you don’t know why .. then I suggest you do a little research. Let me know how you get on, okay?

I am making a statement of belief, with no implication that you should believe the same thing. In fact, you should NOT believe it just because I or anyone else says we believe it. If someone makes a claim that it IS so, and you “must” accept it, you can and should ask them to prove it.

You seem to be making a statement which you claim is fact and should be accepted as such. If that is the case, I would appreciate it if you could prove that the story is “complete tripe”. Not unlikely, not unproven, but “complete tripe”

I am unsure whether you are being slightly facetious here?
I am not really interested in arguing semantics,or wandering down any sort of philosophical path, but rather the simple truth: that of the corruption of the Isaiah passage by the writer of Matthew regarding the Virgin Birth.
If you are unaware of what I am referring to and don’t feel like doing the research then I will gladly tell you. No problem.

Nope, I’m being completely serious. You are making and remaking and continuing to make a very specific statement, with the obvious intention of convincing people who don’t agree with it that it is “true”. That is not going to happen if you don’t provide proof that it is true, or even SOME evidence and/or logic to attempt to convince any doubters. You think the Bible is without truth? Fine, that is your choice. You use this one element to prove your thesis? That would be weak enough, but you don’t even provide any support for this? Good luck with that.

As I mentioned in another comment: proof is for maths.
The evidence clearly supports with no doubt that the Isaiah text regarding the supposed Virgin Birth prophecy was blatantly ripped off and corrupted by the writer of Matthew.
That you are now trying to weasel out of acknowledging this , especially as there are several bibles that include the correct word usage and translation is indicative of one who is either indoctrinated or simply being bloody-minded.

Are you seriously telling me you are unaware of the scriptural corruption of the word usage in this particular example and why it was likely done?

I think you are just having a bit of a fun – a wind up. No one who studies biblical text can be that obtuse or ignorant in this day and age.

You may ask, and yes I am a Christian. But for some reason, I understand that a belief is not the same thing as a fact, and by its very definition may not be true. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe it, just that I don’t insist you believe it, and in fact should NOT believe it just on my sayso..

Only for a few years and probably not enough. Perhaps I’ve heard about what you are talking about in different terms. More likely it is something commonly known to those whose concentration is on disproving the Bible, and I haven’t encountered it yet.

So, a relative Newbie, then? In that case ….
Briefly …
The Hebrew word in question is Almah, which was translated into Greek as Parthenos which means virgin.
However …. Almah does not mean virgin, but Young Woman, and try to wriggle as much as they like, Christians have never been able to come up with a genuine answer to justify this blatant corruption.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the utter nonsense that the passage is a prophecy of a future messiah is complete hogwash as the ‘prophecy’ is directed at King Ahaz.
Of course, many Christians in their usual disingenuous fashion consider this a ‘duel prophecy’ and thus this belief has carried the day with those who have not/cannot be bothered to study and simply put their trust in pastors, vicars, priests and bible study leaders.
If you doubt any of this. Ask a Jewish scholar who understands Hebrew.
Just Google it.

All the references I’ve found state that both “young woman” and “virgin” are acceptable translations of “almah”. Actually virgin is a slightly better translation, since the basis of the word implies “kept out of sight”.

Then you have not referenced/researched a Jewish scholar fluent in Hebrew I venture. Would you like one?
And furthermore, just to reiterate, the prophecy was directed as King Ahaz. Are we on the same page yet, or are you going to continue to dance the theological two step simply to jam this silly Christian dogma into your belief?

If you check the NRSV for example, it has footnotes.
Simply type Isaiah 7:14.
It’s in English, of course, but it should be fairly obvious without a pedantic explanation.
And the relevant Hebrew & Greek words are easily researched.
Again, if you truly are unaware of the discrepancies, let me know.

Ah, ok, the “young woman” versus “virgin” concept. Now I am familiar with what you are saying.

The Hebrew word is “almah” – lass (veiled or private; kept out of sight), maid, damsel, virgin. So “young woman” is not an impossible translation.

The problem is, the event is supposed to be “a sign”. What kind of sign is it when a “young woman is with child and shall bear a son”? A virgin being with child would be a MUCH better sign, so would seem to be the correct translation in this case..

Not impossible for an indoctrinated Christian, one desperately trying to wriggle a piece of nonsense Christian dogma merely to satisfy their belief in the supernatural.
But then again, if you are not interested in the truth … ?

I have to say it saddened me. I respect the fact you believe there is no God… you’re disbelief has no effect on me nor is you’re disbelief my responsibility. But you are a person whose “proof” I would not listen to because you come at me with hate. You give Atheist a bad image.

And as for ISIS… I am grateful I can worship my Creator without fear of death but you too should be thankful that you can choose not to worship Allah without losing your head!

Firstly, I hate nothing. Sadly,hate is generally the preserve of the religious in this case. One only need to look at various Christian fundamentalist sects and certain Islamic fundamentalists.
I despise that this nonsense is indoctrinated into children and used as an excuse to indulge in war and tyranny and general abuse..
I write the way I write. That you don’t like my style is of little consequence; it does not alter the facts, nor the truth: that what you believe in is based on a foundation of lies and fallacious doctrine.

There is no ‘proof’; which is reserved for subjects such as maths, but rather overwhelming evidence.

If you believe I give atheists a bad image I take this as a compliment. To rattle god-believers; maybe give them pause for thought or even to peek the curiosity of those religious readers who lurk behind the scenes without commenting means I m causing a reaction. Whether this be one of hostility- not always my intent – is neither here nor there.

Religion does little but divide humanity.
Its days are numbered, and this is borne out by facts as well.
And never forget that it wasn’t that long ago that the Known-World you may have inhabited was held in thrall by a virtual Christian Theocracy and there is every chance you and your particular brand of god-belief would have seen you burned at the stake as a heretic.

It is because of secularism and its bedfellow democracy that you are free to espouse this nonsense and express the view that unbelievers such as I will spend eternity in ‘Hell’.
You creator deity is one of thousands, and will remain so unless it can be proved that your god( even assuming he exists/exited has exclusive rights; something I suspect members of other religions will fight you tooth and nail over if they feel the need arise.
I hope you never have cause to rue the day the phrase, ‘Over my dead body,’ was coined.

The fact that you immediately lump me in with fundamentalist is interesting. I agree… a lot of awful things have been done in “God’s name” and sadly He is represented by sinful people… I wish He would hit them all with lightning but He doesn’t seem to like my idea!! 😉

Rattled is not the word I would use… saddened fits. You can not rattle me.

I also agree that religion has divided humanity but don’t foul yourself… man would find something else to divided himself by. The desire for power is deep and taking religion away will not change that. God is a tool used by sinful men to do horrid things. I suspect most power driven acts, past and present, are for man desire to be worshipped and
not to worship God (even though He is used)

As for burning at the stake… if what I believe would go against the Christian leaders of the past or if it goes against the Christian leaders of the future and they choose to put me to death… that’s not going to change my faith. I would have a hard time if they threatened to kill my children… I think about that often and when you have children there is such a love that I honestly don’t know what I’d do. (God loves me either way so I’m not sure why I worry about it… I’m only human) but as for my life… they can take it.

Other Christians I know do fight me tooth and nail but all I have been ask to do… my only calling in life is to love God and others. Like I said… I’m not responsible for what you believe or you life… I am called to love you. And the whole purpose of my response was to say I thought your post was hateful. You can disagree with people without being vulgar and name calling. But you are right… it is your blog… and the same bedfellows that give me the right to express my views also give you the right to express yours.

And the day my body is dead will not be one I rue… fear or dread… it will be one I welcome… that is MY HOPE!!

The fact that you immediately lump me in with fundamentalist is interesting ….

Of course you are a Christian fundamentalist – why would you suggest otherwise?

Rattled is not the word I would use… saddened fits. You can not rattle me.

The voice of the indoctrinated … sad.

I also agree that religion has divided humanity but don’t foo(u)l yourself… man would find something else to divided himself by.

I agree, but with the eradication of religion and god-belief it is one step closer toward a sane , just and ( relatively) normal planet. And it is happening. Slowly but surely.

As for burning at the stake… if what I believe would go against the Christian leaders of the past or if it goes against the Christian leaders of the future and they choose to put me to death… that’s not going to change my faith.

Except that your faith is derived from what those past leaders decreed was acceptable belief. How can you be so naïve? Are you completely unaware of the machinations of the ancient Christian church? Of Constantine, Eusebius, Theodosius?
Who do you honestly think was responsible for the compilation of the biblical texts you revere?
And even today, as more accurate translations appear the text changes – even though there are plenty of bone-headed idiots who consider that the KJV is the be all and end of your god’s word (sic).
Even the version of your god is derived from the eradication of such beliefs as Arianism, and semi – Arianism. Don’t you know this? Ever wondered where the phrase ‘I don’t care one iota’ derives from?
What on earth did you study after your ‘’conversion’’?

And the whole purpose of my response was to say I thought your post was hateful. You can disagree with people without being vulgar and name calling. But you are right… it is your blog… and the same bedfellows that give me the right to express my views also give you the right to express yours.

Interesting. That you consider I, as a non-believer, will spend eternity being tortured in Hell is not vulgar? Would you offer graphic details to your children?
And you believe such stories as appear in the Torah; of a genocidal, megalomaniacal despot deity who annihilates humanity in a global flood with the exception of one, soon-to-be incestuous family is not in the least bit vulgar and the perfect bedtime story to read to a four year old?
Strange views you have on vulgarity, and one might even question your ethics and morals
Imagine, you could even do the sounds effects of millions drowning.
I wonder how you would go about explaining the incest? Pictures? Demonstrations with dolls? Quite disgusting isn’t it?
Oh, yes, I forgot. Your god probably issued a special dispensation to Noah and his family to indulge in sex with one another, right?
Hmmm… suddenly it’s all a bit ‘yukky’ when you have to actually think about it, isn’t it?

And the day my body is dead will not be one I rue… fear or dread… it will be one I welcome… that is MY HOPE!!
If you have so little regard for your life now and welcome its demise then why wait for death? Why not destroy yourself right now?

Fair enough … the charge was not explicitly denied.
Maybe I should have asked what type of Christian Moderate Mama considers herself to be?
I thought, however that , not withstanding any lapsed membership fees to Ken Ham’s Fan Club, Dinosaurs and Us – together in Vegetarian Harmony that almost every Christian is a fundamentalist; given that they generally accept the tale of the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian is historical fact.
My bad…

I have great regard for my life… I have purpose which is why I’m still here. But in whatever way I die, which one day we both will die, be it by man, sickness, tragedy or age… the hope I have does not die with my body. That’s why I don’t fear death.

I know you don’t belief in such things and that I’m just a brainwashed, uneducated, idiot in your mind and that’s okay.

This conversation is not going to go anywhere else tonight. I have 3 kids to make breakfast for in the morning and they like to eat at 6:30am. (yea me!! no… they’re worth it… most of the time 😉 )

Plus, I’m a face to face kind of lady, honestly this is my first “conversation” through a comment page (sorry original poster for taking over!!) I’d like to look you in the eyes and talk about why we think what we think. What brought us to the places we are and share with you the doubts I’ve had and still have at times.

I could also be able to judge if you are a jerk or not. You come across that way (which you’ve made clear you don’t care about… I get it!) but I realize conversations lacking in eye contact, body language and tone of voice are hard to have and are easily misunderstood. If you’re ever in the FTW area let me know… I’ll take you out for a beer… or coffee!!

Really? Where have I not confronted any of your assertions/questions/charges?
I implore you, please tell me and I will gladly rectify that small problem in a trice, have no fear.

I have great regard for my life… etc, etc

Well … good for you. Try to be a little more explicit in future, okay?

I know you don’t belie(f)ve in such things and that I’m just a brainwashed, uneducated, idiot in your mind and that’s okay.

Idiot? I never used such a word. Ignorant, most certainly. This is what indoctrination does to people. Severs the ability to exercise critical thought. Compartmentalism saves the religious from suffering cognitive dissonance. But crikey, don’t accept my word. Go talk to /read a deconvertee’s blog. There are plenty former di-hard fundamentalists right here in blogland. Nate Owens at Finding Truth is one such. A nicer bloke you will unlikely meet. A true gentleman and a lot nicer than me, that’s for sure. Some of his tales will scare the bejeezus out of you! Want a link to his blog?
But ignorance can be rectified: especially now you have been presented with alternate information. Give you a damn good reason to go a research, yes? Wouldn’t want the nasty atheist to turn out to be telling the truth, now would you?
God forbid, right?

I could also be able to judge if you are a jerk or not. You come across that way (which you’ve made clear you don’t care about… I get it!) but I realize conversations lacking in eye contact, body language and tone of voice are hard to have and are easily misunderstood. If you’re ever in the FTW area let me know… I’ll take you out for a beer… or coffee!!

Lol … Jerk?( Now look who’s name calling. Feather ruffled? ) Why, because I tell you a few uncomfortable home truths about your religion?
What you believe as an adult is your affair. This is merely an open forum. But children are unable to defend against this hokum so they should be protected against it until they are able to exercise critical thought and make their own decisions. I mean, honestly, how would you describe the incestuous antics of Noah and his family to your three kids?

I am quite busy with mom/wife stuff today and will get back to you on a couple of points later (I’ll do it through your site so I get the heck off HwT’s site!)

What I do want to say right quick is that I am so sorry it came across that I was calling you a jerk! I went back and read my comment and I can see how you would feel that way and again I am sorry!!

I don’t know you or anything deep about what makes up you as a person, so to call you a jerk would be unfounded. I do know that so much of the good is lost in conversation when it’s through typing… I want to see your eyes, your body language and hear your voice… that was what I was trying to get across. And I love beer and coffee 😉

Apology accepted. I have been called worse.
God-Hater comes to mind, though I usually smile at that one.

I also love beer and coffee, though generally not in the same glass.
Feel free to comment over at the Ark’s spot. No problem. Though I am pretty sure Hessian won’t mind if you stay here.
Keeps the ratings up 😉

Colorstorm,
Well, in your last comment, you come close to cursing us all to hell (“You have no issue with me; it is apparent the issue is with God and His ways.”), which is the fall-back position of a fundamentalist who loses an argument. If the choice is between surrendering my critical thinking to an incoherent collection of myth brandished like a sword by the rabidly anti-intellectual, and getting sent to hell – get me there in a hand-basket, now!

Non-dimorphics organisms engage in asexual reproduction all the time; and I suppose with can genetically engineer a female human who can self-reproduce, ala Babylon A.D. But that’s pure speculation at this point.

Which interpretation do Jews not accept? Their biggest rejection was that Jesus was their Messiah.

Of course non-theists don’t have any beliefs about anything God related in the Bible. If they did, they would be hard pressed to claim to be non-theists.

Ways that a “virgin birth” could occur without God:

1) fraud. The technology exists to give every indication that a pregnant woman was a virgin (by definition AND by examination). She could even be convinced that the pregnancy occurred “magically”.

2) There have been cases where a person was born with “both sexes”. Typically, the attending physicians have attempted to “fix” the “defect”, intending that the person has a “better life”. This has not always been the result and doctors (and lawyers) are revisiting this philosophy. It seems to me that it is possible that a woman could be born with the capability of self-impregnating and avoid having that capability removed.

3) I had not considered the possibility, by yes, it is possible that a person could be genetically engineered capable of self reproduction.

Well first all of this is conjecture, as in 1, it is far more likely that she was lying or was aware of being impregnated, or this whole story was fabricated by Paul and his followers (or someone else but Paul is the likely candidate) to make Jesus sound more impressive.

1) there is no way of telling if a woman was a virgin. Anyone claiming they do is lying or mislead. So it’s very easy to pretend to have had a virgin birth back before the modern era. not that anyone would believe you though.

2) While theoretically possible, it has never been documented. You need to have a set of both genatlia, and at least one ovary and testicle. All of which must work. It may actually be impossible but not something I can say definitively.

3) I guess I don’t see how genetic engineering is relevant to this at all. Since there was no genetics back then.

I’m not trying to prove or even suggest that a virgin birth ever occurred. I’m not making any claim that the Bible claim is true. I’m simply trying to find any support for the “virgin birth is crock/tripe” claim, by showing that there are ways one could occur or could appear to have occurred.

1) There is “no way” to be sure a women is a virgin? Perhaps not in every case, but wouldn’t an intact hymen be a strong indication? Or a known lack of intact males available?

2) yep, for this to be the case, a person would have to have a womb and ovary, as well as a testicle and a pathway between them. And the attending physicians would have to have not interfered with this unusual situation. I have no indication this has ever happened, but as far as I can tell, there is the possibility, no matter how remote, that it COULD have happened.

So, what I am saying is that ALL of these are possibilities.

– It happened just as it says in the Bible
– The story happened pretty much as described in the Bible, except that the pregnancy was the natural result of an unusual gender.
– Mary was impregnated by man, and either did not know it or lied about it.
– Jesus’s birth was completely normal and the virginal aspect of it was made up
– The whole story is a “crock”.

To convince someone else that ANY of these are so would require at least some evidence. None has been forthcoming for the “crock” claim.
.

Not necessarily. A person could, naturally or by deliberate attempt, be seen to fulfill all the prophesies yet not be the Messiah. The converse, however IS true; if any prophecy about the Messiah is NOT fulfilled by Jesus, that would cast doubt on his Messianic claims.

You clearly do not understand a single thing about logic or argument. You can use a text to disprove it self, contradictions are never a good thing, and the bible is full of them. The gospels being the worst as they can’t ever agree of where he was born or what sorts of things he said.

What worse still if you just reject everything that doesn’t agree with you. You think it misses the marl because it isn’t in agreement with your views. I honestly do not thing your capable of having this discussion let alone an argument on these matter. You can’t even defend your position you basically just keep saying the same sorts of this over and over and think that some how we’ll finally get it. The reality is we do get it, we just are not impressed. In fact we are annoyed because rather then dealing with our comments you just seem incapable of understanding any of this, or even understand the concept of intellectual honesty.

You just have to stop talking you know nothing about anything other then the bible. I doubt you have even read a book for more then a couple of chapters that doesn’t immediately agree with your world view.

You think the we can know anything about the pass expect what’s written in the bible. Except the Bhagavad Gita is older then the bible by a wide margin, so all those gods must be true, maybe truer then the gods in your bible.

Oh wait no no one was alive back then so we are doomed to compete ignorance forever. “Guess god dun’it.”

You can’t even see how much of a joke you are. you just bought into the first bit of drivel you were exposed too, and have ignored everything else ever since.

You couldn’t know if your world view is correct because it’s the only reference point you have and will likely ever have.

And if you had been paying any attention you’d know I don’t believe in any holy text, but it’s completely clear you don’t respect anything but yourself, and your own ideas, you’ll just keep gabbing on and on until you get bored with yourself, so I’ll be cutting it off here.

Don’t comment anymore your willful ignorance is not worth any more of this blogs time.

No you may think this is what you where doing, but instead you have been asserting what is not evident as true. This is dishonest even if your intentions are good, but since you fail to understand the format of argument I can’t say I’m surprised.

I will be posting an article about logical argument this month you may wish to stick around long enough to read it, but I simply don’t no care either way.